Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)

Comments by Steve Zara


2101. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167872 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 11:50 am

Comment #167862 by seeker_of_truth

One reason macro-evolution requires such large amounts of time is for the random influx of genetic information to form functional sequences to produce changes which lend themselves to improved fitness.


No. If you are willing to accept the formation of a new species, with members which only breed within their own group, and which are structurally different from other organisms, as "macro" evolution, then it can, and does, happen in a single generation in both plants and animals.

2102. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167868 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 11:45 am

Comment #167834 by Bonzai

You are right. There is a real skill involved in reviewing a subject to assess the current status of ideas. I used to teach this as part of a "communication in science" course for degree-level students. I guess this is why I have a real chip on my shoulder when people "cherry pick" scientists who support their views (that was not directed in any way at gr8hands - the researcher, Turok, who originated the idea he refers to is highly respected).

2103. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167856 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 11:33 am

Comment #167817 by gr8hands

I have been researching physics and current understandings of models of the origin of the universe for decades.

The Ekpyrotic model is a minority opinion. It has been challenged in many ways over the past few years, with particular concern regarding whether or not it introduces singularities at the point of contact of the branes, and whether or not the parallel nature of the branes is a somewhat artificial constraint. Andre Linde has been a particular critic of this idea.

The originator of the Ekpyrotic model was Neil Turok. An article of his was posted on this site. Let me quote:

"Now, computational physicist Neil Turok is challenging that model -- and some scientists are taking him seriously."

My emphasis. That is clearly not an indication of an idea that is mainstream.

The issue could be somewhat resolved with near future readings of the cosmic background radiation, to check for the effect of gravity waves. There will be different effects if the brane idea is true or if inflation is true.

I do know what the consensus is - inflationary models.

But, even if it where a majority position, it would be inapproproate to declare that "the universe had no beginning". All models are provisional.

2104. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167813 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 10:55 am

Comment #167811 by Remnant

We have God's entire, complete, revealed Word, something they did not have. Are you starting to understand yet?


Something I have never understood is why Creationists believe that the only source of God's complete revealed word is the flipping Bible and a few prophets. Wouldn't it be reasonable to believe that God would reveal his word in other ways? What about through rocks and fossils?

I mean, I think the idea of a theistic God is tosh, but if one assumed that he exists, it would seems very weird to shut yourself off from other sources of His message, and assume that he only ever used paper.

Comment #167811 by Remnant

Will you please just stop making things up about physics. The majority of physicists now DON'T believe the universe "came from nothing". The believe it came from a timeless state of pre-existing laws.

2105. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167810 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 10:49 am

Comment #167793 by gr8hands

I am currently collecting material for an article on the question of "fine tuning", so I have researched this area.

The ideas presented there are, I am afraid, not a continnum of ideas. They are a form of the Ekpyrotic idea, a distinctly minority opinion of how the big bang arose.

I am afraid I have an allergy to anyone saying that the universe "is definitely like this", especially based on such a minority view.

Amongst the many respected physicists who disagree with that view are Roger Penrose, Victor Stenger and Paul Davies.

I am sorry to contradict you in this matter, I hope you don't mind too much.

2106. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167804 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 10:42 am

Children respect their teachers and a comment like that can be blindly believed by a child that is not prepared to or motivated to seek the truth.


Indeed. This is why children should not be presented with views that aren't based on evidence.

Teach them science. Teach them rational thinking. Then present them with the Bible. And the Koran. And the Torah.

2107. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167783 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 10:29 am

The millions of people that choose not to believe in Him are dwarfed by the two plus billion that do.


Do you believe in General Relativity?

Guess how many have never heard of it.

2108. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167777 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 10:22 am

Annna-

First of all, there is no such thing as "micro" or "macro" evolution.


I am not even sure what "macro" evolution is supposed to mean. I am guessing "evolution in a big leap". We do occasionally see that. As I often mention, we get new species in a single generation by chromosome duplication.

However, what I suspect "macroevolution" is really intended to mean is "evolution in bigger steps than scientists have yet found", so it is goalpost-moving.

2109. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167766 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 10:08 am

Comment #167763 by seeker_of_truth

Micro vs. Macro evolution if you will.


No need to speculate. We have seen "macro" evolution and increases in genetic information.

2110. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167762 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 10:05 am

Comment #167748 by TheTruthID

So what you are saying is any credible evidence by qualified scientists who have discovered evidence for this are quacks?


Yes.

These are scientists in their respected fields, the experts. Only your so-called expertise qualifies as evidence?


Mine, and the hundreds of thousands of thousands of scientists who agree.

You really do need to learn how science works. You can't just go around and pick "My Pet Scientist". You have to go with the consensus. Any other approach is dishonest.

Science is not about hunting for the one or two who support your views. It is about humility and realising that the thousands who may disagree with you probably know what they are doing.

2111. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167757 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 10:01 am

Comment #167749 by gr8hands

I would be very careful about picking the speculations of one physicist and saying anything definite based on that.

2112. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167755 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 10:00 am

Comment #167751 by Remnant

The truth is not evil. Evil is destroying a child's faith and relationship with God and putting their eternal salvation at risk, just because you choose to disbelieve.


Is that one of the truths you have determined? Or is it just some kind of vague guess?

If you do believe in God, do you really think that He is going to condemn children to Hell because of anything I say? Is he that evil?

2113. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167747 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 9:55 am

What a bunch of malarkey! Current theory of the origin of the universe, the big bang, is consistent with the Bible. The science has shown that universe was created, not eternal, is expanding, not static, and space, time, energy, and matter began to exist, out of nothing.


I thought you said nothing could come from nothing?

I am against indoctrinating children by showing them only one side and censoring free and open discussion of opposing thought.


There are an infinite number of possible "sides". Which ones are you going to choose to teach them? I mean, there are only so many hours in the day.

As far as a school child's science education, it does not matter whether the universe was created or just happened. Is a belief in one or the other going to change things?


YES. The idea that the universe was created closes down thought. It says "we already have the answer". It stifles imagination. There are many wonderful and exciting ideas about how the universe could have arisen by itself, or from previous cosmoses. Saying "God stepped in here" shuts off all that.

2114. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167742 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 9:52 am

Comment #167738 by TheTruthID

Good morning. Question for you. Do you accept the fact that man walked with the dinosaurs?


No. The trick is to realise that The Flintstones was not a documentary.

2115. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167737 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 9:45 am

Comment #167734 by Bonzai

You are right. Putting fear of the supernatural and of eternal punishment into a child's mind is indeed the worse evil.

2116. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167735 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 9:43 am

Comment #167617 by seeker_of_truth

1) That it will find specified complexity in biology. One special easily detectable form of specified complexity is irreducible complexity. Design is tested by trying to reverse engineer biological structures to determine if there is an "irreducible core."


That doesn't work. There isn't such a thing as a definite "irreducible core", as there is no telling how it might be reduced. In fact, defining any structure as irreducible may be virtually impossible. There could be almost uncountable possible routes to get to a structure, and all of those routes would have to be shown not to have happened.

I would say that irreducibility is pretty much impossible to demonstrate, as it is simply an argument from incredulity.

Sub list also includes;
2) Rapid appearance of complexity in the fossil record.


This is pretty much impossible to show, due to the rarity of fossilization.

2117. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167726 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 9:36 am

I don't determine truth. God's revealed Word is truth. He has revealed it in His creation, through special revelation in the Bible, through fulfilled prophecy, through th risen Jesus Christ.


No, that doesn't work. You need to be able to determine that this is true.

2118. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167719 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 9:31 am

Comment #167711 by Remnant

Faith is in Christ is not ignorance, nor is it dangerous or wicked.

Your faith is ignorance, dangerous, and wicked. If you want to deny Christ, that is your free will choice but to try and destroy the faith of innocent children is evil. The Lord spoke about that and I am sure He will will have much more to say about that at judgment day.


I have no problem if children come to a faith in Christ in their own time and in their own way. That should be their choice. What I think is evil (yes, irate) is telling them that words written in the bible about the world and the universe are true in contrast to our scientific understanding. The future of our civilization depends on people having a true understanding of nature, so the consequences of our actions can be understood, and so we can deal with natural phenomena such as diseases. Your creationism poisons young minds. It handicaps children, and this is especially sad because we are living at a time when we know so much, and are finding out so much, about the world.

2119. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167705 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 9:21 am

Comment #167703 by Remnant

I will stick with the truth of the risen Jesus.


I thought you didn't determine truth?

I don't have enough brains to be an atheist.


Fixed for you.

2120. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167698 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 9:15 am

Comment #167693 by Remnant

If anyone is trying to restrict choice, it is atheists like you that try to destroy the faith of other people's children with satan's lies that you believe.


You are trying to keep children ignorant in a world which urgently requires people to be educated. That is not just sad, it is dangerous. I would call it wicked.

2121. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167689 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 9:11 am

Comment #167682 by Remnant

Yes there was a global flood.


Naah, sorry. Impossible. As Billy pointed out there are some very slow growing pine trees that are nearly 10,000 years old. Also, a flood would have killed the Australian stromatolites, which require a very specific salinity and exposure to sunlight.

Just doesn't work. Try again.

2122. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167678 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 9:01 am

Comment #167675 by Remnant

Why do you whine so much when you are given what you choose?


Because people like you are trying to restrict choice.

2123. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167670 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 8:53 am

Comment #167625 by Remnant

I didn't say that, I said that under the evolutionary premise of survival of the fittest, the robber would just be following evolutionary dictates,taking advantage of his stronger survival skills, and as an evolutionist you would be in no position to condemn him for doing what evolved naturally. You might not like it, but he would just be following evolutionary dictates.


No. You clearly have little understanding of how evolution works. In species like ours mass theiving is not an evolutionarily stable strategy. You can't say that "he is following evolutionary dictates".

You are also missing a major point. Evolutionary dictates aren't any basis for ethics. They just happen. They are like gravity, or entropy. There is not the slightest reason why we should approve (or disapprove) of someone doing something because of an evolved tendency.

Comment #167640 by Remnant
I do not determine truth and neither do you. They are God's revelation of truth.


You clearly have a problem then. Because if you don't determine truth, then you can have no idea of the truth or falsehood of what God reveals.

To rely on the revelation of God, you have to determine that what you are dealing with is truly the revelation of God....

2124. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #167661 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 8:44 am

Comment #167623 by clearmind

Sorry to correct you: Newton did not/cannot create that law; he just found it.


Could you please explain how the inverse square law could be created?

2125. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167592 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 7:27 am

Comment #167583 by Remnant

No, God created the laws of nature at the time of creation which control our natural world.


What mechanism did he use to create these laws?

Current origin of the universe theory conforms with the thought that at the time of the "big bang" the laws of nature began to exist as did space, time, energy, and matter.


No. Most physicists believe that there is an independent foundation of the laws of nature which is not dependent on the Universe, or on time, or on God. Examples of such foundations are String Theory and Loop Quantum Gravity.

If evolutionary theory were true, then morals would be relative to the individual and therefore no one would be in a position to object to another person's standard of morality, or "moral evolution".


No. Evolutionary theory requires that groups of inidviduals of a species get along with each other to a certain degree. Behaviour patterns can be inherited, and have to compete with other possible behaviour patterns. This leads to evolutionarily stable strategies, such as forms of co-operation.

2126. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167584 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 7:21 am

Comment #167576 by Remnant

What do you consider tragic about a person wanting to live a moral life in obedience to a God they believe in?


Because the only "evidence" for such a God is that person's own internal feelings and their beliefs about the feelings of others. This means people are taking as definite some very dodgy sources of morality. This leads to some very problematic definitions of "moral", which can include slavery, the oppression of women and homosexuals, genital mutilation and so on.

There is not the slightest bit of evidence that there is any objective and independent standard of morality, and yet religion causes people to confidently claim that they know the divine and absolute truth based on nothing more than old scribblings and gut feelings. That can be very dangerous.

2127. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #167554 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 6:56 am

Comment #167551 by rotaTOR

That is totally uncalled for, and I think you should apologise. There is a huge difference between "boyish" and boy.

2128. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #167552 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 6:54 am

Comment #167548 by Cartomancer

I admit I knew my post would get that response from you :)

Much prefer the smooth, boyish look


I can't stand it, meself.

Testosterone levels are generally highest in men from about 18-25, so it makes a kind of sense that this is when they should be at their most alluring.


Naah. That just means they get into fights more.

2129. Russell T Davies: Return of the (tea) Time Lord

Comment #167550 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 6:48 am

As I said before, homosexuals do leave offspring, if homosexuality is a selected trait there should be a higher incidence of homosexuality among children of homosexuals, there is no evidence for that. You can speculate that the responsible gene may be recessive, this is a possible way to explain the absence of evidence but it doesn't provide positive evidence to support your claim.


No, this shows a deep misunderstanding of the way genes can work.

Let me refer again to an example of certain bird species in which, if families are large enough, some siblings don't mate, but assist with the raising of others. This does not mean that those particular sibilings that don't mate have a "non mating" gene. It means that the species as a whole has genes that can switch off mating in certain individuals in certain circumstances.

This is why any idea of a "gay gene" is ridiculous. Such a thing is almost certainly not going to exist. What is inherited is not homosexuality, but the ability to have your sexuality changed, and that is likely to be present in everyone. It may not even be the genes of individual who is gay who decides the sexuality - it could be a hormonal trigger in the womb from the mother. It could be that in families of a certain size, or if population densities are over a certain size, mothers have an increased tendency to have gay children. This is suggested by the finding that in families with many children, the younger ones are more likely to be gay.

The big lesson of Dawkins' The Extended Phenotype is that we have to stop thinking of genes as being associated with individuals.

2130. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #167538 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 6:38 am

Comment #167528 by epeeist

True, but I still do it, cos I have pride in my work. God is just a slacker.

Comment #167517 by Dinah

Facial hair makes men look like men rather than boys. I can't understand why this isn't considered something attractive. I do think Dennett's beard is rather excessive though.

2131. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #167522 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 6:13 am

Comment #167511 by Quetzalcoatl

What do you mean by this? I have no scientific background, but I talk about scientific issues, most recently the post to Kardashovel on wormholes. Is there a distinction?


I have put my foot in my mouth again. What I meant was no understanding of science. You clearly do!

We get comments from people who don't seem to understand that others may have made the points they have, and had their points answered.

Actually, now I think about it, this isn't really to do with science. It is far, far broader. I got the same feeling when I read some of David Robertson's letters. How could he not realise that the "argument from beauty" has already been made a thousand times, and answered each time?

This is perhaps simply about people not realising the limitations of their own understanding and knowledge in certain areas.

2132. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #167520 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 6:09 am

Comment #167501 by clearmind

Religion is the manual and handbook of humans if some they interpret it wrongly, that does not mean that God does not exist. If you take it wrong and fail to interpret it according to the time an circumstances, it has nothing to do with religion and accordingly evolution delusion.


It shows, at the very least, that God is pretty awful at writing manuals, which is particularly strange considering that he (according to creationists) also made the people who are supposed to understand the manuals. I mean, honestly, how incompetent can you get?

2133. Responses to 'Gods and Earthlings' by Richard Dawkins

Comment #167509 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 5:43 am

Comment #167288 by Mitchell Gilks

You have it right.

I am intrigued as to why people who aren't scientists feel they have any kind of ability to comment on scientific subjects, but providing they aren't making definite statements that can influence things too much, it would be entirely inappropriate to try and shut them up.

2134. Is religion a threat to rationality and science?

Comment #167504 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 5:36 am

Comment #167501 by clearmind

Where do you teach? I think some people there may be interested what you are posting here.

2135. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167503 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 5:34 am

Comment #167497 by decius

you may want to consider that what is said on an IRC channel isn't saved in a public space for future consultation.


Yes, I know. I have been using IRC for close to 15 years :)

than having people leaving this site and going commenting elsewhere its content.


That was my point about hosting. People don't see "sites", they just see web pages and links. If things were arranged right, there need be no sense of leaving anything. Even though they are both hosted here, the front page stuff and the fora seem almost like fundamentally different systems to me, and I am not entirely sure what the difference between the two systems is supposed to be, to be honest.

But, asking Josh first is indeed the best idea.

2136. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167488 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 5:22 am

I think the idea of where something is hosted and managed may well be irrelevant. We may not be thinking "internet" enough. For example, PZ Myers has set up a #pharyngula IRC channel. He isn't "hosting" it.

Something could, in principle, be set up anywhere. All that would be needed is some suitable styling of the page and, at some point, if considered appropriate, a link from here.

I am with Quetz... blogger sounds a good possible solution: very easy to use, quick to set up, reliable (as far as I know) and free.

2137. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167486 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 5:16 am

Comment #167479 by Geoff

I don't see how that link helps. We need something that is indexed, that has links you can find and copy in seconds, that has soundbites and quotes, all laid out.

2138. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167470 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 4:50 am

Comment #167462 by decius

I agree it would be best linked to here, but given the cost of setting something up for free elsewhere, with that only taking a minute, and paying Josh to re-invent that here....

Alan...

Skype is just what I know. Does that system you mention have text conversations too?

2139. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167456 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 4:20 am

Perhaps, but wouldn't it be easier to make them more visible than start a new site from scratch?


Not really, no. One can set up a restricted blog on blogger in seconds. I am not saying that is the right approach, but my impression is that the fora are too heavyweight. I find it difficult to find my way around them and search for things.

2140. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167448 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 4:00 am

On a positive note however, I would be interested in a facility that offered the hosting of a ventrilo server to enable voice contact.


Not that I want to detract from this, but there is Skype, which is free, and which allows both voice and chat, including for groups. I am on Skype.

2141. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167441 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 3:48 am

The fora aren't visible enough IMO.


Indeed. They also don't seem to encourage the same fast conversational style as here.

2142. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167428 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 3:07 am

Paula-

A very good idea. It would be far better associated with this site and managed here.

I won't even start to do anything for a while until this possibility has been investigated.

2143. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167414 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 2:31 am

Comment #167407 by AllanW

Not entirely sure now. Just seemed like a vaguely good idea at the time. Perhaps just somewhere where ideas can be discussed along with strategies for dealing with creationists and creationism, and promoting reason, without us being constantly trolled and feeling the need to pounce.

2144. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167409 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 2:27 am

Comment #167408 by Quetzalcoatl

True. But what he posted could have been considered correct by many.

Your icon is getting truly scary, by the way.

2145. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167404 by Steve Zara on April 24, 2008 at 2:17 am

Comment #167243 by Remnant

It does not prove that the movement of subatomic particles is uncaused. It only describes our inability to predict the speed and location of subatomic particles at any one time. The inability to predict the speed or location of a subatomic particle does not mean that that their movement is uncaused.


Yes, it does. The idea that it is only a matter of measurement, and not a true reflection of the underlying uncertainty is profoundly mistaken.

I suggest you research the Bell Inequality, and experiments to test it.

Perhaps you should take your own advice when you said, "The moral here is don't post about science unless you understand it." I hope you do not teach students.


I have been a degree-level teacher at Imperial College. What are your qualifications?

The Law of Causality is the foundation of all science. Science is the search for causes.


No. Science is the search for explanations. It says nothing about causality. Quantum mechanics shows that lack of causality can occur when considering small scales. General relativity shows that lack of causality can, at least theoretically, occur at large scales. The nature of this lack of causality is that God is not required to make universes.

If you want to argue physics here you need more than the ability to cut-and-paste from Wikipedia.

2146. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167183 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 5:39 pm

Comment #167181 by TheTruthID

Resistance to viruses.

2147. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167178 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 5:34 pm

You would never admit it, we all know that, but deep down you are totally aware of the incredible lack of true scientific evidence for evolution. It's just a matter of time before it all caves in. One day you will be accountable for participating in one of the biggest injustices in all humanity.


Piffle!

I used to work in a biochemistry laboratory during my Ph.D research. All around me, evolution was happening, in petri dishes. It occasionally got in the way of research.

What you have revealed is that you have no qualifications to discuss this matter. You should be deeply embarrassed for even raising this issue.

One of these days, a major new flu virus will arise. This will be as a result of evolution. I sincerely hope that idiots like you don't have too much influence on public policy before that happens. If so, your ignorance could be deadly.

2148. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167174 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 5:29 pm

I should believe you vs. the more highly respected honored scientists whom have come to a different conclusion? I don't think so.


I am simply after good manners.

As you well know, highly honored scientists you refer to think your ideas are a waste of time. Francis Crick never considered the possibility of a cosmic designer. He was a pure materialist.

Can I assume that your repeated quoting of his words means that you go along with this?

And I note you have still not supplied any mention of your qualifications to discuss such matters... if you could provide them, I would be grateful.

2149. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #167165 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 5:20 pm

Comment #167161 by TheTruthID

I am not a resident guru.

But if you want to get formal, it is Dr Zara. Many here you have spoken to have similar titles.

What are your qualifications?

2150. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #167154 by Steve Zara on April 23, 2008 at 5:06 pm

God created gravity


How?

I think it is only fair to point out that this is a very widely read forum. The number of people who comment here is a mere fraction of the number who read it. Your continued lack of response to questions does not just make you look like an idiot, it is a very public demonstration of the total lack of rational foundation of your religious and creationist views.

More Pages: Previous | 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 | Next